IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v75y1999i2p295-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asymmetries in Ordered Strength of Preference Models: Implications of Focus Shift for Discrete-Choice Preference Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Robert J. Johnston
  • Stephen K. Swallow

Abstract

This paper explores potential focus shift asymmetries in an ordered strength of preference model applied to contingent choice data. A focus shift occurs when respondents weight factors differently when assessing preference for an "accepted" scenario than they do when assessing preference for a "rejected" scenario, and may imply that respondents do not refer to a single underlying preference function. Using data drawn from a survey which addressed preferences for watershed management, the model results identified focus shift asymmetries in the ordered strength of preference model. The paper discusses implications for policy, survey design, and discrete-choice preference estimation.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert J. Johnston & Stephen K. Swallow, 1999. "Asymmetries in Ordered Strength of Preference Models: Implications of Focus Shift for Discrete-Choice Preference Estimation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 295-310.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:75:y:1999:i:2:p:295-310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147012
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    2. Leskinen, Pekka & Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Rank-based modelling of preferences in multi-criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 721-733, November.
    3. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.
    4. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    5. Johnston, Robert J., 2003. "Forecasting Support For Rural Land Use Policies: The Role Of Preference Asymmetries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22156, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    7. Makriyannis, Christos & Johnston, Robert, 2016. "Welfare Analysis for Climate Risk Reductions: Are Current Treatments of Outcome Uncertainty Sufficient?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235532, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:75:y:1999:i:2:p:295-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.